2. It is reasonable to respect the sentencing conditions compared to the judgment of the first instance court, if there is no change in the sentencing conditions, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). The lower court determined a sentence against the Defendant by comprehensively taking into account the circumstances favorable to the Defendant, such as the reason for sentencing in its judgment (a mental problem appears to exist with respect to the Defendant, and this seems to have functioned as one of the causes that led to the commission of crime), and unfavorable circumstances (the Defendant committed each of the instant crimes during the period of repeated offense, including the punishment, and the Defendant committed each of the instant crimes during the period of repeated offense, the Defendant committed an act without any particular reason, and repeated an act without any reason between the Defendant and the Defendant, and thereby, caused the suffering of community members, the Defendant agreed with the victims, or failed to receive a letter from the victims). The lower court did not have any special circumstances or changes in circumstances that may be considered newly after the sentence of the lower judgment.

In addition, comprehensively taking account of the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, motive, background, means and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., the sentencing of the lower court does not seem to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion, and thus, does not seem to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

3. The defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the appeal is groundless.